Update on the MailScanner in Fedora packaging situation

[David Nalley]

We don't have to package for F-9 (when you request CVS you can request
only certain versions) and the last few of my rpms I have explicitly
left off F-9.
Sooo, don't let that stop you. Lets try and announce here what we are
working on, so as not to duplicate work and to trade reviews.



On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Eli Wapniarski
<eli at orbsky.homelinux.org> wrote:
> So.... I guess the first step would be to get the missing perl modules packaged. I would suggest waiting until F-9 is officially dead. So we don't leave F-9 users stuck in security patch limbo.
>
> Eli
>
> On Friday 22 May 2009 22:39:01 David Nalley wrote:
>> 13 packages definitely need to be packaged. Mostly perl modules
>> 23 packages already exist. For the most part these are on par or later
>> versions than mailscanner includes. 2 perl modules look a bit out of
>> date and we might file bugs requesting an update with the current
>> maintainers.
>> 4 packages have some very close name matches - so we'll need to check
>> on the status of those in the source and see if they are really
>> already existent or also need to be built.
>>
>> Details here:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailScanner_in_Fedora#List_of_MailScanner_RPMs_Required_and_their_Status_Within_Fedora_-_.28Date_last_edited_-_22.2F05.2F09.29
>>
>> Anyone want to start staking claims?? We can trade reviews amongst
>> ourselves and hopefully whittle this list down quickly.
>> _______________________________________________
>> mailscanner-sig mailing list
>> mailscanner-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
>>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mailscanner-sig mailing list
> mailscanner-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
>